Discussion:
autobiography of fractal-vortex
(too old to reply)
fractal
2010-08-17 19:46:54 UTC
Permalink
here is a material for those who wander about "who is fractal?"
Autobiography.

http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/bio/bio2010_Eng.htm

fractal-vortex
David
2010-08-17 20:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by fractal
here is a material for those who wander about "who is fractal?"
Autobiography.
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/bio/bio2010_Eng.htm
fractal-vortex
That was interesting, to say the least. Like you, I was a communist in
NY and also a messenger. Of course I was born there, so it was
different for me than for you.

David
jh
2010-08-17 20:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by fractal
here is a material for those who wander about "who is fractal?"
Autobiography.
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/bio/bio2010_Eng.htm
fractal-vortex
All very well said!

As for what we do for socialism on APST, the answer is ... nothing.
This is purely a discussion group. Indeed I am uncomfortable even
using the word "we," I am certainly not part of any "we" that includes
Vangelis and Dusty.

What is its merit? Simply this, that it is an Internet discussion
group devoted to Trotsky's ideas open to absolutely anyone, with
*absolutely no censorship of any variety.* As it is an Internet
newsgroup and not a blog or what have you, it is physically impossible
for anyone to censor it ... other than of course the U.S. government,
which does own the Internet after all. But they do not find it
convenient to censor the Internet at this time. They prefer to watch
and put things in their files at the NSA.

As for those that "wander" about fractal, it would be good if they
would "wander" someplace else.

-jh-
srd
2010-08-17 21:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by fractal
here is a material for those who wander about "who is fractal?"
Autobiography.
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/bio/bio2010_Eng.htm
fractal-vortex
Nice essay: I can see why the Ukrainians flock to your English
lessons.

Regarding the requirement for a civil war for to have a bourgeois
counter-revolution in Russia, this has been a recent topic of intense
discussion here, and that discussion may soon resume. My only other
major disagreement with you concerns the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan, which you imply was a mistake, while I support it.

One issue you don't clarify is your position on the the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Perhaps my interest seems frivolous, but I'm
quite curious about whether my impressions were accurate—or Holmes's
were. Vast differences on method are at stake. <g> What is your
position on the conflict between Israel and Hamas? What's your general
program for Palestine? Do you think Israel has the right to exist?

srd
fractal
2010-08-18 07:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by fractal
here is a material for those who wander about "who is fractal?"
Autobiography.
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/bio/bio2010_Eng.htm
fractal-vortex
Nice essay: I can see why the Ukrainians flock to your English
lessons.
Regarding the requirement for a civil war for to have a bourgeois
counter-revolution in Russia, this has been a recent topic of intense
discussion here, and that discussion may soon resume. My only other
major disagreement with you concerns the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan, which you imply was a mistake, while I support it.
One issue you don't clarify is your position on the the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Perhaps my interest seems frivolous, but I'm
quite curious about whether my impressions were accurate—or Holmes's
were. Vast differences on method are at stake. <g> What is your
position on the conflict between Israel and Hamas? What's your general
program for Palestine? Do you think Israel has the right to exist?
srd
Dear SRD!

1. On Afghanistan, I wrote an essay where I trace the history of their
revolution, and the "present" state (I think up to year 2006). You can
read it in English here:

http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/Afghanistan/index_Afghanistan_Eng.htm

Especially I recommend the section on history of the revolution:

http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/Afghanistan/history_Afghanistan_Eng.htm

2. I don't want to say anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
as I would like to study the problem. If you remember, I asked people
in the conference to clarify it for me. You can place your version of
the problem in the wiki which I am suggesting, in the section I
opened for discussion of the problem:

http://socialism.wiki-site.com/index.php/Israeli_Palestinian_conflict_Eng

Tentatively, I think we should work for the union of Palestinian and
Jewish socialists, hence for an international revolution. I know this
is abstract, but I can not say before I study the issue.

fractal
Vngelis
2010-08-18 08:17:19 UTC
Permalink
http://socialism.wiki-site.com/index.php/Israeli_Palestinian_conflict...
Tentatively, I think we should work for the union of Palestinian and
Jewish socialists, hence for an international revolution. I know this
is abstract, but I can not say before I study the issue.
fractal
Half the greek websites that exist are by 'revolutionaries'studying
the 'revolution' in other words sponsored by some govt department or
other.

The myth of the jewish nature of israel and its settlers is a myth
which goes
back to biblical times...
Jimmy Carter wrote that "the overwhelming bias for Israel comes from
Christians like me who have been taught to honor and protect God's
chosen people from among whom came our own savior, Jesus Christ."

vngelis
srd
2010-08-18 09:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by fractal
Post by srd
Post by fractal
here is a material for those who wander about "who is fractal?"
Autobiography.
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/bio/bio2010_Eng.htm
fractal-vortex
Nice essay: I can see why the Ukrainians flock to your English
lessons.
Regarding the requirement for a civil war for to have a bourgeois
counter-revolution in Russia, this has been a recent topic of intense
discussion here, and that discussion may soon resume. My only other
major disagreement with you concerns the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan, which you imply was a mistake, while I support it.
One issue you don't clarify is your position on the the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Perhaps my interest seems frivolous, but I'm
quite curious about whether my impressions were accurate—or Holmes's
were. Vast differences on method are at stake. <g> What is your
position on the conflict between Israel and Hamas? What's your general
program for Palestine? Do you think Israel has the right to exist?
srd
Dear SRD!
1. On Afghanistan, I wrote an essay where I trace the history of their
revolution, and the "present" state (I think up to year 2006). You can
Yes, I saw that, but the link I was particularly interested in is
broken: "A review of history of revolution and counterrevolution in
Afghanistan."
Post by fractal
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/Afghanistan/index_Afghanistan_Eng.htm
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/Afghanistan/history_Afghanistan_Eng.htm
2. I don't want to say anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
as I would like to study the problem. If you remember, I asked people
in the conference to clarify it for me. You can place your version of
the problem in the wiki which I am suggesting,  in the section I
http://socialism.wiki-site.com/index.php/Israeli_Palestinian_conflict...
Tentatively, I think we should work for the union of Palestinian and
Jewish socialists, hence for an international revolution. I know this
is abstract, but I can not say before I study the issue.
But it is unusual that you take a strong interest in Islamic anti-
imperialism, yet you haven't studied the Palestinian conflict. Do you
think the issues are different, say, between terrorist attacks by
Islamic militants against the U.S. military infrastructure—which I
think you agreed with me (and no one else here) were generally
supportable and attacks by (for example) Hezbollah against the State
of Israel? It seems you have a fundamental anti-imperialist position,
but you may not treat Israel the same way as other imperialist state.
[Perhaps because you think the lives of all Israelis are directly at
stake in the Middle East, unlike the situation of all Americans, etc.
in terrorist attacks here. Just a guess, but the abundance of
Ukrainian anti-Semitism might cause some distortions of outlook, from
my perspective of course.]

Incidentally, since the Ukraine is probably rather infested with
fascism, perhaps you have a suggestion about how to deal with vngelis.

srd
jh
2010-08-18 09:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
...
Post by srd
Regarding the requirement for a civil war for to have a bourgeois
counter-revolution in Russia, this has been a recent topic of intense
discussion here, and that discussion may soon resume.
Indeed. On this basic question, Spartacist theoretician Joseph Seymour
wrote a definitive analysis published in their magazine in 1992 ot
'93, which has been transcribed and will be posted here fairly soon. I
am not certain as to whether or not they translated it into Russian
and published it in the Russian Spartacist. In any case, it would also
be appropriate for posting in the wiki.
Post by srd
My only other
Post by srd
major disagreement with you concerns the Russian invasion of
Afghanistan, which you imply was a mistake, while I support it.
One issue you don't clarify is your position on the the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Perhaps my interest seems frivolous, but I'm
quite curious about whether my impressions were accurate—or Holmes's
were. Vast differences on method are at stake. <g> What is your
position on the conflict between Israel and Hamas? What's your general
program for Palestine? Do you think Israel has the right to exist?
srd
Dear SRD!
1. On Afghanistan, I wrote an essay where I trace the history of their
revolution, and the "present" state (I think up to year 2006). You can
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/Afghanistan/index_Afghanistan_Eng.htm
http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/Afghanistan/history_Afghanistan_Eng.htm
This is a very serious, valuable and useful essay, based on
information available in the ex-Soviet Union and much more difficult
to find in America at least. It seems to contradict the idea that the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a "mistake," if by that you mean
they should not have done it. The Brezhnev regime in its fumble-
fingered way was doing the only thing that could have prevented
disaster. If Kosygin had won out, the Afghan revolution would likely
have collapsed and the horrors of contemporary Afghanistan would have
unfurled a decade earlier.

Analytically speaking, there is an obvious question about the 1978
Afghan Revolution it does not address. How is it that a revolution
could take the form of an uprising of the PDPA led by military
officers in the Afghan army? Does not this violate Marxist conceptions
of the state?

The answer is due to a key factor the essay does not discuss.
Afghanistan bordered and was fairly closely entangled with the Soviet
Union, and many Afghan officers were trained in the Soviet Union, a
far more powerful country than small and backward Afghanistan. So just
as it is possible for the US to stage coups in Latin America, the
Soviet Union had sufficient influence that, although the revolution
was *not* a Soviet coup, it was the influence of the Soviet state over
the Afghan state that made military a revolution led by the Soviet-
aligned and at least verbally communist PDPA possible.

Or, putting it another way, how was it possible for Daud, leader of
the Afghan bourgeois state, to appoint officers who were pro-Soviet
Marxists? Because of all the military aid etc. Afghanistan was
receiving from the USSR, the likely large role of Soviet trade in the
Afghan economy, etc. etc.

As for the Bolshevism and Menshevism of the PDPA factions, what has to
be remembered is that the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were *genuinely*
parties of the Russian working class, whereas the PDPA was so only in
its aspirations, for the simple reason that little or no Afghan
proletariat existed. So both the "realistic Menshevik opportunists" of
the Parcham and the Khalq "ultraleft Stalinists" had no real social
base, at least not one corresponding to their political programs, and
so could only impose their policies on society by force, inevitably
alienating much of the population.

Indeed even the land reforms could not win over the peasantry, as
Afghan society was too medieval and socially backward for the peasants
to understand the idea of them seizing the land!

The solution for Afghanistan would have been to go all the way, and
incorporate it into the Soviet Union as another Central Asian republic
like Tadzhikistan. In the long run this would have meant less violence
against the population, not more, as then there would have been the
resources for financing the tremendous social transformation
Afghanistan needed then and certainly still needs now.

Now, given the extreme continuing weakness of the Afghan proletariat,
and for that matter of the "new intellectual layers" that you fractal
see as replacing the proletariat, I do not believe there is a
possibility of a revolution in Afghanistan in the immediate future. If
the Taliban throws the US out, which is quite possible, that will
merely mean counterrevolution in a different form.
Post by srd
2. I don't want to say anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
as I would like to study the problem. If you remember, I asked people
in the conference to clarify it for me. You can place your version of
the problem in the wiki which I am suggesting,  in the section I
http://socialism.wiki-site.com/index.php/Israeli_Palestinian_conflict...
Tentatively, I think we should work for the union of Palestinian and
Jewish socialists, hence for an international revolution. I know this
is abstract, but I can not say before I study the issue.
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning. I hope you are familiar with the Spartacist
analyses, the question of "interpenetrated peoples" and so forth.

-jh-
srd
2010-08-19 10:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.

This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.

srd
David
2010-08-19 12:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.

D.
Vngelis
2010-08-19 19:09:12 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 19, 1:44 pm, David <***@gmail.com> wrote:

A graduate of Columbia university who 'sidesteps' the question of
israel,
but sees ...anti-semitism everywhere...

SiRguNd pull the other one. At least you agree with Columbias graduate
fractal that Al CIAda is an Arab outfit and not run by the CIA.

Selling the war on terror is now outdated. Get ready to sell 'poor
little israel'
and stop asking the NGO-fractal to come forward now. In due course he
will,
when required.

vngelis
שמואל ירושלמי
2010-08-19 19:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic. And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.

Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
jh
2010-08-19 19:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic. And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I completely agree with Comrade Yerushalmi. Of course this too is just
the beginning of wisdom for this complex question.

-jh-
Vngelis
2010-08-19 21:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic. And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
Capitalist countries that were created from the fall of feudalism
gained
legitimacy in historical development and what followed next.

Colonial outposts imposed on Arab lands in the era when colonialism
was dying could never gain any historical legitimacy. Israel isn't
therefore
simply a capitalist country but a US airbase. Despite the growth of US
airbases
around the world to number 100 in the last few years, that doesn't
imply they
can sustain them as they are now bankrupt. Without gold to prop up the
dollar
they are relying on the world to keep them afloat. The more they spend
they more
they bankrupt everyone.

vngelis
srd
2010-08-19 21:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.

It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.

srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
David
2010-08-19 23:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.
It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.
srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
That is, actually, an interesting take on that. Being an Imperialist
colonial settler-state is still an Imperialist country. I also use,
polemically with Zionists and "left"Zionists the same term Vngelis
does, that is, an "US Aircraft carrier". And of course it is. But it's
also a small Imperialist power in it's own right.

Of course this is yet another contradiction for Imperialist apologist
Gelis because on the one hand he argues that Israel controls US
foreign policy and on the other he argues, as he just does, that
Israel is only a "US air craft carrier". Can't have it both ways,
really.

DAvid
srd
2010-08-20 00:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.
It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.
srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
That is, actually, an interesting take on that. Being an Imperialist
colonial settler-state is still an Imperialist country.
I didn't mean to contradict that. My comment was modeled on Lenin's
'not a workers state but a workers state subject to degeneration...'

srd
Post by David
I also use,
polemically with Zionists and "left"Zionists the same term Vngelis
does, that is, an "US Aircraft carrier". And of course it is. But it's
also a small Imperialist power in it's own right.
Of course this is yet another contradiction for Imperialist apologist
Gelis because on the one hand he argues that Israel controls US
foreign policy and on the other he argues, as he just does, that
Israel is only a "US air craft carrier". Can't have it both ways,
really.
DAvid
jh
2010-08-20 02:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.
It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.
srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
That is, actually, an interesting take on that. Being an Imperialist
colonial settler-state is still an Imperialist country. I also use,
polemically with Zionists and "left"Zionists the same term Vngelis
does, that is, an "US Aircraft carrier". And of course it is. But it's
also a small Imperialist power in it's own right.
Of course this is yet another contradiction for Imperialist apologist
Gelis because on the one hand he argues that Israel controls US
foreign policy and on the other he argues, as he just does, that
Israel is only a "US air craft carrier". Can't have it both ways,
really.
DAvid- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good point! Another example of Vangelis talking out of both sides of
his mouth, as the unprincipled opportunist he is.

-jh-
Vngelis
2010-08-20 07:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.
It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.
srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner
That is, actually, an interesting take on that. Being an Imperialist
colonial settler-state is still an Imperialist country. I also use,
polemically with Zionists and "left"Zionists the same term Vngelis
does, that is, an "US Aircraft carrier". And of course it is. But it's
also a small Imperialist power in it's own right.
Of course this is yet another contradiction for Imperialist apologist
Gelis because on the one hand he argues that Israel controls US
foreign policy and on the other he argues, as he just does, that
Israel is only a "US air craft carrier". Can't have it both ways,
really.
DAvid
This is another manufactured thought typical of a globalist hypocrite.
Being in charge of an airbase does not make you independent on the
army but dependent on it. Israel only moves with US approval.
He who pays the piper calls the shots. Much like your ideological
sponsor
Soros.

vngelis
jh
2010-08-20 02:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.
This raises the question of just what is "legitimacy." From the
workers' standpoint, Shmuel is absolutely right, because the workers,
as Marx explained, have no country.

But this does not mean that oppressed nations should not have the
right to resistance to national oppression and self-determination.
Actually, whether this applies to Israel or not is a moot point,
because it *has* achieved independence. And, since it has nuclear
weapons, that is irreversible.

Indeed, in the current era, the only true marker of "legitimacy," i.e.
the ability of a nation to establish itself as such without question,
is the possession of nuclear weapons. All nations without them are
potentially subject to nuclear destruction by those that do. That is
why one should defend Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons,
whatever one thinks of its reactionary Islamic rulers.

In practice, asking whether Israel has the "right to exist" is a
meaningless question. It exists and will continue to exist, until such
time as the working class of Israel takes the upper hand and, if it
wishes, can change the nature of the state from the national point of
view. The Zionist state can only be overthrown from the inside, by its
own oppressed population.

Any serious attempt to destroy it from the outside would, if
successful, undoubtedly result in the unleashing of its large nuclear
arsenal on its enemies, and the destruction of human civilization
certainly in the Middle East, and most likely in the world.

-jh-
Post by srd
It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.
srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
srd
2010-08-20 03:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.
I see that here going very serios discussion on quetion: be or not to
be to israeli country? My position on this is next: According to me
all capitalistic countries are not legitimic.
Some capitalist countries have a limited, relative legitimacy,
described as their right to self-determination. Most Leninist today
apply this right only to the historically oppressed countries. But
even those who think the right to national self-determination applies
to imperialist countries usually make a distinction regarding the
State of Israel. The reason Israel has no right to exist is
historically specific: it isn't a capitalist country or even an
imperialist capitalist country but an imperialist capitalist settler
state existing on stolen land whose existence blocks the national
aspirations of the country it stole the land from.
This raises the question of just what is "legitimacy." From the
workers' standpoint, Shmuel is absolutely right, because the workers,
as Marx explained, have no country.
No, but as YOU have argued before, they defend the right of nations in
the face of genuine threats to self-determination. The icl even argued
that small European countries (e.g. Luxembourg?-can never remember for
sure) would, hypothetically, be justified in limiting the immigration
of foreign workers were national identity threatened. You weren't
prepared to interpret "the workers have no fatherland" in so
ultraleftist fashion in that matter. Certainly it is true that
Luxemburg is an independent country!
Post by jh
But this does not mean that oppressed nations should not have the
right to resistance to national oppression and self-determination.
Actually, whether this applies to Israel or not is a moot point,
because it *has* achieved independence.
Sometimes one might like to avoid concluding that there's an element
of Zionist special pleading in the icl position, but this kind of
obfuscation makes it hard. You have also pointed out that in the
course of war between Palestinians and "Hebrews," the role of
oppressor and oppressed could reverse, as would your position on whose
self-determination to defend. The issue is far from moot. The only
question in my mind is whether the icl position is an adaptation to
Zionism or a form of it.


And, since it has nuclear
Post by jh
weapons, that is irreversible.
Belying this point you always make is the fact that nothing I have
said disallows the Palestinians or invading Arabs from concluding a
deal with the "Hebrews," up to and including giving them the right to
self-determination in a socialist federation. If this is necessary to
avoid nuclear slaughter, it's a tactical concession that's
unavoidable. But that no more justifies using the Zionist nuclear
arsenal to justify Israeli existence than it justified left-
imperialist calls for a negotiated settlement in Vietnam (despite the
knowledge that negotiations of some sort were realistically
inevitable).

That Israel has no right to exist is the unifying concept of anti-
Zionism. Even if the phrase isn't ideal in its lack of precision, it's
the concept in which the entire anti-Zionist movement has framed the
issue. Trotskyists must be prepared to address the issue on those
terms, unless they can show that it is impossible. You might prefer to
call the position critical support of Israel's lack of right to exist.

I had always thought the reason the Sparts called for the self-
determination of the "Hebrew-speaking" nation is to allow them to
agree with the non-right to self-determination for the aircraft
carrier "State of Israel," that is, to agree with all opponents of
Zionism that Israel has no right to exist. The more I hear of the icl
position on the Mid-East the more amazed I am and the less I like it.
I recall MacPhineas, otherwise rather sympathetic to the icl, thought
the same.

srd
Post by jh
Indeed, in the current era, the only true marker of "legitimacy," i.e.
the ability of a nation to establish itself as such without question,
is the possession of nuclear weapons. All nations without them are
potentially subject to nuclear destruction by those that do. That is
why one should defend Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons,
whatever one thinks of its reactionary Islamic rulers.
In practice, asking whether Israel has the "right to exist" is a
meaningless question. It exists and will continue to exist, until such
time as the working class of Israel takes the upper hand and, if it
wishes, can change the nature of the state from the national point of
view. The Zionist state can only be overthrown from the inside, by its
own oppressed population.
Any serious attempt to destroy it from the outside would, if
successful, undoubtedly result in the unleashing of its large nuclear
arsenal on its enemies, and the destruction of human civilization
certainly in the Middle East, and most likely in the world.
-jh-
Post by srd
It seems that Shmuel, fractal, and perhaps Holmes are inclined to
collapse the issue of Israel's right to exist into the question of the
general legitimacy of capitalist states. This can either represent an
ultra-leftist tendency to deny any form of defense to colonial states
under imperialist attack or a capitulation to Zionism by abstracting
away key issues in the Middle East. Only in Shmuel's case do I
entertain that it might be the first.
srd
Post by שמואל ירושלמי
And concretic in related
to subject of our disscution I sure, that very optimal resoluton for
israeli-palestinian conflict - this resolution of one socialist and
equel state on all territory of Palestine, from Jordan river and until
Mediterranian sea. All other solutions - are breackedand not
effectivic.
Best wishes from Red Palestine! Shmuel Yerushalmi - poet and
revolutioner- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
srd
2010-08-20 04:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Concretely, what I read from fractal convinces me by its omissions
[the difference in our "methods"] that fractal does not support Hamas
or Hezbollah shelling Israeli settlements. He's either against it (on
principle, not tactically or strategically) or unsure. And that's a
big lacuna for ya and a concrete expression of position on Israel's
right to exist.

I don't think the same applies to Holmes, but JH, maybe you can again
surprise me—unpleasantly.

srd
jh
2010-08-20 08:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Concretely, what I read from fractal convinces me by its omissions
[the difference in our "methods"] that fractal does not support Hamas
or Hezbollah shelling Israeli settlements. He's either against it (on
principle, not tactically or strategically) or unsure. And that's a
big lacuna for ya and a concrete expression of position on Israel's
right to exist.
I don't think the same applies to Holmes, but JH, maybe you can again
surprise me—unpleasantly.
srd
I guess so. No, I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah shelling the
Israeli civilian population. Be it noted that neither does Hamas nor
Hezbollah, albeit for tactical rather than principled reasons.

BTW, though the Spartacists do not greatly emphasize this, being as in
this period there is far, far more Arab and Palestinian civilians
being killed than Israeli, neither do the Spartacists. This is clearly
albeit briefly stated in virtually every article the WV has run on
Lebanon and Gaza.

-jh-

-jh-
Vngelis
2010-08-20 08:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
Concretely, what I read from fractal convinces me by its omissions
[the difference in our "methods"] that fractal does not support Hamas
or Hezbollah shelling Israeli settlements. He's either against it (on
principle, not tactically or strategically) or unsure. And that's a
big lacuna for ya and a concrete expression of position on Israel's
right to exist.
I don't think the same applies to Holmes, but JH, maybe you can again
surprise me—unpleasantly.
srd
I guess so. No, I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah shelling the
Israeli civilian population. Be it noted that neither does Hamas nor
Hezbollah, albeit for tactical rather than principled reasons.
BTW, though the Spartacists do not greatly emphasize this, being as in
this period there is far, far more Arab and Palestinian civilians
being killed than Israeli, neither do the Spartacists. This is clearly
albeit briefly stated in virtually every article the WV has run on
Lebanon and Gaza.
-jh-
-jh-
Israelis here become ...civilian population of a ...nuclear powered
nation state.
Holmes here wants to dictate the forms of resistance: writing articles
from new york,
faxin them over, turning them to leaflets and circulating them outside
israeli supermarkets.

Then when enough computer programmers are recruited and they can fill
a bus, the revolution and unity among 'hebrew speaking' workers and
arab nationalists will have been achieved.
Its a successful recipe based in part to previous experience, greek
resistance, algerian resistance.

vngelis
srd
2010-08-20 21:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
Concretely, what I read from fractal convinces me by its omissions
[the difference in our "methods"] that fractal does not support Hamas
or Hezbollah shelling Israeli settlements. He's either against it (on
principle, not tactically or strategically) or unsure. And that's a
big lacuna for ya and a concrete expression of position on Israel's
right to exist.
I don't think the same applies to Holmes, but JH, maybe you can again
surprise me—unpleasantly.
srd
I guess so. No, I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah shelling the
Israeli civilian population.
You're fetishizing the civilian-military distinction where it isn't
applicable. A settler in the occupied territories is a militarist.

srd
Post by jh
Be it noted that neither does Hamas nor
Hezbollah, albeit for tactical rather than principled reasons.
BTW, though the Spartacists do not greatly emphasize this, being as in
this period there is far, far more Arab and Palestinian civilians
being killed than Israeli, neither do the Spartacists. This is clearly
albeit briefly stated in virtually every article the WV has run on
Lebanon and Gaza.
-jh-
-jh-
jh
2010-08-21 00:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
Concretely, what I read from fractal convinces me by its omissions
[the difference in our "methods"] that fractal does not support Hamas
or Hezbollah shelling Israeli settlements. He's either against it (on
principle, not tactically or strategically) or unsure. And that's a
big lacuna for ya and a concrete expression of position on Israel's
right to exist.
I don't think the same applies to Holmes, but JH, maybe you can again
surprise me—unpleasantly.
srd
I guess so. No, I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah shelling the
Israeli civilian population.
You're fetishizing the civilian-military distinction where it isn't
applicable. A settler in the occupied territories is a militarist.
srd
he didn't say "settlers," he said "settlements." He was, I assume,
talking about all non-Palestinian inhabitants of the area as
legitimate targets (not least foreign workers I would expect).

As for the settlers' settlements, many of them are fascistic outposts
of gun-carrying extremists dedicated to shooting up any Arab who
crosses their path--and Jews who defend Palestinian rights too. I have
no sympathy for such people if they get themselves shot up. But a good
number are just Israeli workers taking advantage of government tax
advantages to get cheap housing on the West Bank.

Such settlers have no right to be there and should be kicked out so
that the Palestinians get what is rightful back. But they are civilian
and not military and ought not to be bombed, any more than racist
white workers in America or Australia ought to be subjected to
violence, if they are not gun-toting fascists who are a physical
danger to other workers of other skin colors. Difficult as it may be,
as a section of the working class they need to be won over not bombed.

On the subject of Australian racists, we are, thank goodness, without
Dusty at the moment. This is probably only temporary, though perhaps
he is miffed at Vangelis for calling Australia an imperialist settler
colony.

-jh-
Post by srd
Post by jh
Be it noted that neither does Hamas nor
Hezbollah, albeit for tactical rather than principled reasons.
BTW, though the Spartacists do not greatly emphasize this, being as in
this period there is far, far more Arab and Palestinian civilians
being killed than Israeli, neither do the Spartacists. This is clearly
albeit briefly stated in virtually every article the WV has run on
Lebanon and Gaza.
-jh-
srd
2010-08-21 07:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
Concretely, what I read from fractal convinces me by its omissions
[the difference in our "methods"] that fractal does not support Hamas
or Hezbollah shelling Israeli settlements. He's either against it (on
principle, not tactically or strategically) or unsure. And that's a
big lacuna for ya and a concrete expression of position on Israel's
right to exist.
I don't think the same applies to Holmes, but JH, maybe you can again
surprise me—unpleasantly.
srd
I guess so. No, I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah shelling the
Israeli civilian population.
You're fetishizing the civilian-military distinction where it isn't
applicable. A settler in the occupied territories is a militarist.
srd
he didn't say "settlers," he said "settlements." He was, I assume,
talking about all non-Palestinian inhabitants of the area as
legitimate targets (not least foreign workers I would expect).
You've lost me: who is "he"?
Post by jh
As for the settlers' settlements, many of them are fascistic outposts
of gun-carrying extremists dedicated to shooting up any Arab who
crosses their path--and Jews who defend Palestinian rights too. I have
no sympathy for such people if they get themselves shot up. But a good
number are just Israeli workers taking advantage of government tax
advantages to get cheap housing on the West Bank.
And many scabs are just workers taking the opportunity to collect
wages in hard times.

Would you have applied the same logic, based on the Israelis as
workers, to white South African workers. That is, would you insist on
an attempt to persuade, despite the privileges being so great that
persuasion is impossible? Why would that restriction appeal to a
pragmatist?

It's axiomatic that the main function of American racism after the
Civil War is to divide the working class. Does the oppression of
Palestinians by Israel have a similar function? Obviously not. The
purpose of the oppression of Palestinians was to take their land and
keep them from taking it back.

The approach to unity and its possibility depend on the source of the
special oppression. Socialists counter American racism, the division
of the working class, by the struggle to unite the class, which means
persuading white workers. The Palestinians should counter Palestinian
oppression, which consists of taking their land and imposing civil and
political restraints designed to retain what was stolen, by taking the
land back. The dynamics are much closer to South African than American
because in Israel, *real* privileges rest on the expropriation of the
Palestinians. In America, racist white workers themselves receive
lower wages than they would without the division. They aren't
privileged except in the eyes of some Maoists.

How will the State of Israel be eradicated? Since it serves as a
Middle East airbase, first and foremost, the chances are the whole
Middle East will go socialist before Israel. Israel will face a united
socialist Arab union that will probably have a nuclear deterrent. The
socialist countries will have to remove the airbase, and shouldn't
expect a great deal of support from its personnel. Even janitors on
military bases tend to be loyal. Of course, things may go quite
differently, but saying Israel can't be extirpated by external force
depends on a limited view of the prospects.

srd

srd
Post by jh
Such settlers have no right to be there and should be kicked out so
that the Palestinians get what is rightful back. But they are civilian
and not military and ought not to be bombed, any more than racist
white workers in America or Australia ought to be subjected to
violence, if they are not gun-toting fascists who are a physical
danger to other workers of other skin colors. Difficult as it may be,
as a section of the working class they need to be won over not bombed.
On the subject of Australian racists, we are, thank goodness, without
Dusty at the moment. This is probably only temporary, though perhaps
he is miffed at Vangelis for calling Australia an imperialist settler
colony.
-jh-
Post by srd
Post by jh
Be it noted that neither does Hamas nor
Hezbollah, albeit for tactical rather than principled reasons.
BTW, though the Spartacists do not greatly emphasize this, being as in
this period there is far, far more Arab and Palestinian civilians
being killed than Israeli, neither do the Spartacists. This is clearly
albeit briefly stated in virtually every article the WV has run on
Lebanon and Gaza.
-jh-
jh
2010-08-21 07:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
...
Post by jh
he didn't say "settlers," he said "settlements." He was, I assume,
talking about all non-Palestinian inhabitants of the area as
legitimate targets (not least foreign workers I would expect).
You've lost me: who is "he"?
Vangelis.
Post by srd
Post by jh
As for the settlers' settlements, many of them are fascistic outposts
of gun-carrying extremists dedicated to shooting up any Arab who
crosses their path--and Jews who defend Palestinian rights too. I have
no sympathy for such people if they get themselves shot up. But a good
number are just Israeli workers taking advantage of government tax
advantages to get cheap housing on the West Bank.
And many scabs are just workers taking the opportunity to collect
wages in hard times.
Would you have applied the same logic, based on the Israelis as
workers, to white South African workers. That is, would you insist on
an attempt to persuade, despite the privileges being so great that
persuasion is impossible? Why would that restriction appeal to a
pragmatist?
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.

But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.

Or perhaps you meant my reference to trying to persuading them to
remember what class they are part of, and that living on stolen land
is not in their own class interests. That is another matter. After
all, one attempts to persuade scabs not to scab by appealing to class
loyalties, when possible.
Post by srd
It's axiomatic that the main function of American racism after the
Civil War is to divide the working class. Does the oppression of
Palestinians by Israel have a similar function? Obviously not. The
purpose of the oppression of Palestinians was to take their land and
keep them from taking it back.
Actually, dividing the working class has not historically been the
main function of American racism post-civil war. Rather, its main
function was to help consolidate the oppression of blacks in America
as a race-color caste, as a legacy of slavery. From the capitalist
standpoint, dividing the working class was a side benefit. Deliberate
ivide and rule tactics were primarily applied by capitalists in
setting native and immigrant workers at each others' throats.
Post by srd
The approach to unity and its possibility depend on the source of the
special oppression. Socialists counter American racism, the division
of the working class, by the struggle to unite the class, which means
persuading white workers. The Palestinians should counter Palestinian
oppression, which consists of taking their land and imposing civil and
political restraints designed to retain what was stolen, by taking the
land back. The dynamics are much closer to South African than American
because in Israel, *real* privileges rest on the expropriation of the
Palestinians. In America, racist white workers themselves receive
lower wages than they would without the division. They aren't
privileged except in the eyes of some Maoists.
Certainly it would be a fine thing if the Palestinians could take
their land back. They cannot, for physical and practical reasons.
There is a close and obvious American analogy to their situation,
namely chattel slavery. It was physically impossible for American
slaves to overthrow their masters through their own efforts, as they
were outnumbered and certainly outgunned by southern whites.
Mississippi was not Haiti. Liberation from slavery required an
alliance with the North, in the Second American Revolution, sometimes
referred to as the Civil War.

Similarly, Palestinian liberation can only be obtained through
revolution in Israel and the surrounding countries against the Zionist
and Arab ruling classes.
Post by srd
How will the State of Israel be eradicated? Since it serves as a
Middle East airbase, first and foremost, the chances are the whole
Middle East will go socialist before Israel. Israel will face a united
socialist Arab union that will probably have a nuclear deterrent. The
socialist countries will have to remove the airbase, and shouldn't
expect a great deal of support from its personnel. Even janitors on
military bases tend to be loyal. Of course, things may go quite
differently, but saying Israel can't be extirpated by external force
depends on a limited view of the prospects.
srd
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.

-jh-
Vngelis
2010-08-21 17:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.
-jh-
When America had the bomb and threatened the Soviet Union Stalin
responded by asserting if we get bombed we will unleash all our troops
in E Europe who will be instructed to kill as many europeans as they
can. America took this threat seriously.

We are now in war against time. If the yanks pull out of Iraq they may
have the free hand to start on Iran and if Iran via its supporters
attack Israel the USA wont give a shit as they can die for US
interests. But if Iran gets the bomb they will be able to stave off a
nuclear attack and hence the wold will be a safer place, indirectly.

vngelis
jh
2010-08-21 17:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vngelis
Post by jh
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.
-jh-
When America had the bomb and threatened the Soviet Union Stalin
responded by asserting if we get bombed we will unleash all our troops
in E Europe who will be instructed to kill as many europeans as they
can. America took this threat seriously.
Yes indeed it did, that being before ICBM's. The Soviets had plenty of
fighters to shoot down bombers, so a nuclear run on Moscow would have
been pretty tricky.

Even after ICBM's this continued to be a fairly serious threat,
especially since the Russians had their own, as nuking Soviet troops
in western Europe would hardly be good for US investments there.

A bit unfair to Stalin, he threatened to impose communist regimes on
western Europe (not verbally but implicitly), not exterminate the
population. I suppose an understandable conclusion, as you have
slipped towards being an exterminationist yourself.
Post by Vngelis
We are now in war against time. If the yanks pull out of Iraq they may
have the free hand to start on Iran and if Iran via its supporters
attack Israel the USA wont give a shit as they can die for US
interests. But if Iran gets the bomb they will be able to stave off a
nuclear attack and hence the wold will be a safer place, indirectly.
vngelis
David
2010-08-21 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vngelis
Post by jh
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.
-jh-
When America had the bomb and threatened the Soviet Union Stalin
responded by asserting if we get bombed we will unleash all our troops
in E Europe who will be instructed to kill as many europeans as they
can. America took this threat seriously.
We are now in war against time. If the yanks pull out of Iraq they may
have the free hand to start on Iran and if Iran via its supporters
attack Israel the USA wont give a shit as they can die for US
interests. But if Iran gets the bomb they will be able to stave off a
nuclear attack and hence the wold will be a safer place, indirectly.
vngelis
Actually pretty accurate as far as it goes. I think there are still
HUGE issues of politics and military strategy in terms of Iran,
however, given it's huge population, size, technological
sophistication, ability to make gasoline prices spike to $12/gal etc
etc. I don't actually believe the US has the troops to invade Iran.
They don't have too, of course, as invasions are only one tactic of an
overall strategy of destruction and, the goal, destabilization of the
Iran political economy.

Put simply, the US could close the Straights of Hormuz and prevent
Iran and the Gulf States from shipping it's oil. Iran can do the
*exact* same thing. It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction" and it
doesn't matter who starts it, the results are the same.

Stalin's threat, one he never intended to carry out, last until 1949
when the Russian militarized their first A-bomb. Then that became
M.A.D. and assured there would be no nuking of anyone.

D.
srd
2010-08-24 02:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
The settlements seem to be an integral part of an Israeli military
strategy (unlike what I know of South Africa). As to workers employed
on the settlements, it seems to me the same morals apply as would to
janitors on any imperialist military installation (or in the Pentagon,
killed by 9/11). (To put it crassly in terms of capitalist law, these
workers have "assumed the risk.")

srd
jh
2010-08-24 03:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by jh
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
The settlements seem to be an integral part of an Israeli military
strategy (unlike what I know of South Africa). As to workers employed
on the settlements, it seems to me the same morals apply as would to
janitors on any imperialist military installation (or in the Pentagon,
killed by 9/11). (To put it crassly in terms of capitalist law, these
workers have "assumed the risk.")
srd
I didn't so much mean workers building the settlements, who by the way
are probably mostly foreign immigrants (not Palestinian I assume, the
Israelis not being stupid). I meant workers living in them and
commuting to their jobs in Israel. It's an awful small country,
probably smaller than metropolitan LA in square miles.

At one point the settlements were just frontier forts to hold the
Palestinians down. But with the Palestinians on the West Bank
effectively subdued by the PLO since 1992, except during occasional
Intifadas, they have existed for so long that their military role for
the older settlements at any rate is no longer important, they are
economically just part of Israel.

Which does not grant them any legitimacy IMHO, but means that they
should not be treated as if they were frontier forts. The original
Palestinian owners clearly have the right to them, they have to leave,
something even your more liberal Zionists understand.

-jh-
srd
2010-08-24 05:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
Post by jh
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
The settlements seem to be an integral part of an Israeli military
strategy (unlike what I know of South Africa). As to workers employed
on the settlements, it seems to me the same morals apply as would to
janitors on any imperialist military installation (or in the Pentagon,
killed by 9/11). (To put it crassly in terms of capitalist law, these
workers have "assumed the risk.")
srd
I didn't so much mean workers building the settlements, who by the way
are probably mostly foreign immigrants (not Palestinian I assume, the
Israelis not being stupid). I meant workers living in them and
commuting to their jobs in Israel. It's an awful small country,
probably smaller than metropolitan LA in square miles.
At one point the settlements were just frontier forts to hold the
Palestinians down. But with the Palestinians on the West Bank
effectively subdued by the PLO since 1992, except during occasional
Intifadas, they have existed for so long that their military role for
the older settlements at any rate
Well, what about the newer ones?

srd
Post by jh
is no longer important, they are
economically just part of Israel.
Which does not grant them any legitimacy IMHO, but means that they
should not be treated as if they were frontier forts. The original
Palestinian owners clearly have the right to them, they have to leave,
something even your more liberal Zionists understand.
-jh-
jh
2010-08-24 08:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
Post by jh
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
The settlements seem to be an integral part of an Israeli military
strategy (unlike what I know of South Africa). As to workers employed
on the settlements, it seems to me the same morals apply as would to
janitors on any imperialist military installation (or in the Pentagon,
killed by 9/11). (To put it crassly in terms of capitalist law, these
workers have "assumed the risk.")
srd
I didn't so much mean workers building the settlements, who by the way
are probably mostly foreign immigrants (not Palestinian I assume, the
Israelis not being stupid). I meant workers living in them and
commuting to their jobs in Israel. It's an awful small country,
probably smaller than metropolitan LA in square miles.
At one point the settlements were just frontier forts to hold the
Palestinians down. But with the Palestinians on the West Bank
effectively subdued by the PLO since 1992, except during occasional
Intifadas, they have existed for so long that their military role for
the older settlements at any rate
Well, what about the newer ones?
srd
Well, yeah, some of the recent settlements of ultrafanatics whose main
goal in life seems to be grinding Palestinian faces into the dirt and
burning down their olive groves and random shots into villages for
amusement, I might well have a different attitude to. Whereas other
recent settlements are just efforts to take advantage of tax deals and
save on Israeli tax money. Sleazy but not murderous.

By now, some settlements have been around since the late '60s, and not
all of them are identical.

-jh-
Post by srd
Post by jh
is no longer important, they are
economically just part of Israel.
Which does not grant them any legitimacy IMHO, but means that they
should not be treated as if they were frontier forts. The original
Palestinian owners clearly have the right to them, they have to leave,
something even your more liberal Zionists understand.
-jh-- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
srd
2010-08-24 02:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
...
Post by jh
he didn't say "settlers," he said "settlements." He was, I assume,
talking about all non-Palestinian inhabitants of the area as
legitimate targets (not least foreign workers I would expect).
You've lost me: who is "he"?
Vangelis.
Post by srd
Post by jh
As for the settlers' settlements, many of them are fascistic outposts
of gun-carrying extremists dedicated to shooting up any Arab who
crosses their path--and Jews who defend Palestinian rights too. I have
no sympathy for such people if they get themselves shot up. But a good
number are just Israeli workers taking advantage of government tax
advantages to get cheap housing on the West Bank.
And many scabs are just workers taking the opportunity to collect
wages in hard times.
Would you have applied the same logic, based on the Israelis as
workers, to white South African workers. That is, would you insist on
an attempt to persuade, despite the privileges being so great that
persuasion is impossible? Why would that restriction appeal to a
pragmatist?
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
Or perhaps you meant my reference to trying to persuading them to
remember what class they are part of, and that living on stolen land
is not in their own class interests. That is another matter. After
all, one attempts to persuade scabs not to scab by appealing to class
loyalties, when possible.
Post by srd
It's axiomatic that the main function of American racism after the
Civil War is to divide the working class. Does the oppression of
Palestinians by Israel have a similar function? Obviously not. The
purpose of the oppression of Palestinians was to take their land and
keep them from taking it back.
Actually, dividing the working class has not historically been the
main function of American racism post-civil war. Rather, its main
function was to help consolidate the oppression of blacks in America
as a race-color caste, as a legacy of slavery. From the capitalist
standpoint, dividing the working class was a side benefit. Deliberate
ivide and rule tactics were primarily applied by capitalists in
setting native and immigrant workers at each others' throats.
Post by srd
The approach to unity and its possibility depend on the source of the
special oppression. Socialists counter American racism, the division
of the working class, by the struggle to unite the class, which means
persuading white workers. The Palestinians should counter Palestinian
oppression, which consists of taking their land and imposing civil and
political restraints designed to retain what was stolen, by taking the
land back. The dynamics are much closer to South African than American
because in Israel, *real* privileges rest on the expropriation of the
Palestinians. In America, racist white workers themselves receive
lower wages than they would without the division. They aren't
privileged except in the eyes of some Maoists.
Certainly it would be a fine thing if the Palestinians could take
their land back. They cannot, for physical and practical reasons.
There is a close and obvious American analogy to their situation,
namely chattel slavery. It was physically impossible for American
slaves to overthrow their masters through their own efforts, as they
were outnumbered and certainly outgunned by southern whites.
Mississippi was not Haiti. Liberation from slavery required an
alliance with the North, in the Second American Revolution, sometimes
referred to as the Civil War.
Similarly, Palestinian liberation can only be obtained through
revolution in Israel and the surrounding countries against the Zionist
and Arab ruling classes.
Post by srd
How will the State of Israel be eradicated? Since it serves as a
Middle East airbase, first and foremost, the chances are the whole
Middle East will go socialist before Israel. Israel will face a united
socialist Arab union that will probably have a nuclear deterrent. The
socialist countries will have to remove the airbase, and shouldn't
expect a great deal of support from its personnel. Even janitors on
military bases tend to be loyal. Of course, things may go quite
differently, but saying Israel can't be extirpated by external force
depends on a limited view of the prospects.
srd
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.
-jh-
Not offensive: deterring a militarily threatened Israel against a
nuclear strike.
jh
2010-08-24 03:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
...
Post by jh
he didn't say "settlers," he said "settlements." He was, I assume,
talking about all non-Palestinian inhabitants of the area as
legitimate targets (not least foreign workers I would expect).
You've lost me: who is "he"?
Vangelis.
Post by srd
Post by jh
As for the settlers' settlements, many of them are fascistic outposts
of gun-carrying extremists dedicated to shooting up any Arab who
crosses their path--and Jews who defend Palestinian rights too. I have
no sympathy for such people if they get themselves shot up. But a good
number are just Israeli workers taking advantage of government tax
advantages to get cheap housing on the West Bank.
And many scabs are just workers taking the opportunity to collect
wages in hard times.
Would you have applied the same logic, based on the Israelis as
workers, to white South African workers. That is, would you insist on
an attempt to persuade, despite the privileges being so great that
persuasion is impossible? Why would that restriction appeal to a
pragmatist?
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
Or perhaps you meant my reference to trying to persuading them to
remember what class they are part of, and that living on stolen land
is not in their own class interests. That is another matter. After
all, one attempts to persuade scabs not to scab by appealing to class
loyalties, when possible.
Post by srd
It's axiomatic that the main function of American racism after the
Civil War is to divide the working class. Does the oppression of
Palestinians by Israel have a similar function? Obviously not. The
purpose of the oppression of Palestinians was to take their land and
keep them from taking it back.
Actually, dividing the working class has not historically been the
main function of American racism post-civil war. Rather, its main
function was to help consolidate the oppression of blacks in America
as a race-color caste, as a legacy of slavery. From the capitalist
standpoint, dividing the working class was a side benefit. Deliberate
ivide and rule tactics were primarily applied by capitalists in
setting native and immigrant workers at each others' throats.
Post by srd
The approach to unity and its possibility depend on the source of the
special oppression. Socialists counter American racism, the division
of the working class, by the struggle to unite the class, which means
persuading white workers. The Palestinians should counter Palestinian
oppression, which consists of taking their land and imposing civil and
political restraints designed to retain what was stolen, by taking the
land back. The dynamics are much closer to South African than American
because in Israel, *real* privileges rest on the expropriation of the
Palestinians. In America, racist white workers themselves receive
lower wages than they would without the division. They aren't
privileged except in the eyes of some Maoists.
Certainly it would be a fine thing if the Palestinians could take
their land back. They cannot, for physical and practical reasons.
There is a close and obvious American analogy to their situation,
namely chattel slavery. It was physically impossible for American
slaves to overthrow their masters through their own efforts, as they
were outnumbered and certainly outgunned by southern whites.
Mississippi was not Haiti. Liberation from slavery required an
alliance with the North, in the Second American Revolution, sometimes
referred to as the Civil War.
Similarly, Palestinian liberation can only be obtained through
revolution in Israel and the surrounding countries against the Zionist
and Arab ruling classes.
Post by srd
How will the State of Israel be eradicated? Since it serves as a
Middle East airbase, first and foremost, the chances are the whole
Middle East will go socialist before Israel. Israel will face a united
socialist Arab union that will probably have a nuclear deterrent. The
socialist countries will have to remove the airbase, and shouldn't
expect a great deal of support from its personnel. Even janitors on
military bases tend to be loyal. Of course, things may go quite
differently, but saying Israel can't be extirpated by external force
depends on a limited view of the prospects.
srd
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.
-jh-
Not offensive: deterring a militarily threatened Israel against a
nuclear strike.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So you think, then, that Muslim nuclear weapons would deter the
Israelis from using theirs if Israel was threatened with collapse and
overrun? That is naive. Ever heard of the "Masada complex"? I assure
you, if Israel was going down, its Zionist elite would be quite
prepared to take the rest of the Middle East, and maybe the world,
down with it.

No, the only way the Zionist monolith can be cracked is internally,
not externally. Though conceivably you could have a slow process of
internal disintegration and erosion. The Israeli military at any rate
is less dominant in the region than it used to be.

Economically however Israel is actually much *less* of a mere "US air
carrier" than it sed to be decades ago, when Spartacist leader Reuben
Samuels described it as a "schnorrer state." The 6 billion or so in
aid Israel gets from the US yealy is a much smaller percentage of the
GNP than it used to be. Israel, like Brazil and India, is one of those
Third World countries that has been doing relatively well lately
economically. Which is new, it's not so long ago that Israel was faced
with recurred economic crises and huge unemployment rates every 5-6
years or so.

-jh-
Vngelis
2010-08-24 09:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
...
Post by jh
he didn't say "settlers," he said "settlements." He was, I assume,
talking about all non-Palestinian inhabitants of the area as
legitimate targets (not least foreign workers I would expect).
You've lost me: who is "he"?
Vangelis.
Post by srd
Post by jh
As for the settlers' settlements, many of them are fascistic outposts
of gun-carrying extremists dedicated to shooting up any Arab who
crosses their path--and Jews who defend Palestinian rights too. I have
no sympathy for such people if they get themselves shot up. But a good
number are just Israeli workers taking advantage of government tax
advantages to get cheap housing on the West Bank.
And many scabs are just workers taking the opportunity to collect
wages in hard times.
Would you have applied the same logic, based on the Israelis as
workers, to white South African workers. That is, would you insist on
an attempt to persuade, despite the privileges being so great that
persuasion is impossible? Why would that restriction appeal to a
pragmatist?
Persuade? Who said anything about persuasion? If they don't want to
give up their stolen land to the rightful owners, too bad. Hell, even
the Israeli regime managed to kick the settlers out of Gaza, and if
the "two state solution" ever actually happens, no doubt more will be
kicked out.
But that doesn't mean supporting random physical assaults on them,
whether in Israel or South Africa. "One settler one bullet" is
Vangelis's slogan for South Africa.
Or perhaps you meant my reference to trying to persuading them to
remember what class they are part of, and that living on stolen land
is not in their own class interests. That is another matter. After
all, one attempts to persuade scabs not to scab by appealing to class
loyalties, when possible.
Post by srd
It's axiomatic that the main function of American racism after the
Civil War is to divide the working class. Does the oppression of
Palestinians by Israel have a similar function? Obviously not. The
purpose of the oppression of Palestinians was to take their land and
keep them from taking it back.
Actually, dividing the working class has not historically been the
main function of American racism post-civil war. Rather, its main
function was to help consolidate the oppression of blacks in America
as a race-color caste, as a legacy of slavery. From the capitalist
standpoint, dividing the working class was a side benefit. Deliberate
ivide and rule tactics were primarily applied by capitalists in
setting native and immigrant workers at each others' throats.
Post by srd
The approach to unity and its possibility depend on the source of the
special oppression. Socialists counter American racism, the division
of the working class, by the struggle to unite the class, which means
persuading white workers. The Palestinians should counter Palestinian
oppression, which consists of taking their land and imposing civil and
political restraints designed to retain what was stolen, by taking the
land back. The dynamics are much closer to South African than American
because in Israel, *real* privileges rest on the expropriation of the
Palestinians. In America, racist white workers themselves receive
lower wages than they would without the division. They aren't
privileged except in the eyes of some Maoists.
Certainly it would be a fine thing if the Palestinians could take
their land back. They cannot, for physical and practical reasons.
There is a close and obvious American analogy to their situation,
namely chattel slavery. It was physically impossible for American
slaves to overthrow their masters through their own efforts, as they
were outnumbered and certainly outgunned by southern whites.
Mississippi was not Haiti. Liberation from slavery required an
alliance with the North, in the Second American Revolution, sometimes
referred to as the Civil War.
Similarly, Palestinian liberation can only be obtained through
revolution in Israel and the surrounding countries against the Zionist
and Arab ruling classes.
Post by srd
How will the State of Israel be eradicated? Since it serves as a
Middle East airbase, first and foremost, the chances are the whole
Middle East will go socialist before Israel. Israel will face a united
socialist Arab union that will probably have a nuclear deterrent. The
socialist countries will have to remove the airbase, and shouldn't
expect a great deal of support from its personnel. Even janitors on
military bases tend to be loyal. Of course, things may go quite
differently, but saying Israel can't be extirpated by external force
depends on a limited view of the prospects.
srd
A nuclear deterrent is just that, a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons
as offensive weapons are problematic to say the least. Hiroshima was
bad enough, and nuclear technology has advanced far, far beyond Fat
Man and Little Boy.
-jh-
Not offensive: deterring a militarily threatened Israel against a
nuclear strike.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So you think, then, that Muslim nuclear weapons would deter the
Israelis from using theirs if Israel was threatened with collapse and
overrun? That is naive. Ever heard of the "Masada complex"? I assure
you, if Israel was going down, its Zionist elite would be quite
prepared to take the rest of the Middle East, and maybe the world,
down with it.
No, the only way the Zionist monolith can be cracked is internally,
not externally. Though conceivably you could have a slow process of
internal disintegration and erosion. The Israeli military at any rate
is less dominant in the region than it used to be.
Economically however Israel is actually much *less* of a mere "US air
carrier" than it sed to be decades ago, when Spartacist leader Reuben
Samuels described it as a "schnorrer state." The 6 billion or so in
aid Israel gets from the US yealy is a much smaller percentage of the
GNP than it used to be. Israel, like Brazil and India, is one of those
Third World countries that has been doing relatively well lately
economically. Which is new, it's not so long ago that Israel was faced
with recurred economic crises and huge unemployment rates every 5-6
years or so.
-jh-
As if the israelis own and run their own nuclear weapons and that
because
of some so called masada complex it can never get overthrown but only
from
the inside. This is the justification for it to exist indefinitely and
follows zionist
spart logic. They dont call it a jewish state but label its workers
hebrew quite
conveniently to justify a two party state.

The latest mythology is that israel actually exports anything and that
it doesn't actually get a lot of money from the USA. The whole of
Europe has given
public sector contracts to israeli companies at the behest of Wall
Street, to help it
survive the constant wars. Israel bombs Palestinian territories the EU
steps in
to 're-build'. Lets not forget the money gathering operation from
Switzerland a few
years back. Whenever Israel runs out of money a new Holocaust story
surfaces and
sanctions are placed. Switzerland got its own back with the swin flu
scam last year.

Holmes is defending the existence of Israel by stating it cant be
beat, just like he argued for Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001 and
the list is endless. A true 4th Reich quisling even after Rome is
burning down right before his eyes.

vngelis
jh
2010-08-24 17:36:48 UTC
Permalink
...As if the israelis own and run their own nuclear weapons...
There he goes again.

-jh-
Vngelis
2010-08-24 18:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
...As if the israelis own and run their own nuclear weapons...
There he goes again.
-jh-
Those orange exports must have allowed them to enrich uranium...
vngelis
jh
2010-08-25 07:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vngelis
Post by jh
...As if the israelis own and run their own nuclear weapons...
There he goes again.
-jh-
Those orange exports must have allowed them to enrich uranium...
vngelis
They got the uranium from South Africa. The technical stuff they did
themselves with *no* help from the US, which was, albeit rather
mildly, opposed to Israel getting the bomb in the '60s. Neither
Kennedy nor LBJ liked the idea at all, though they didn't do much
about it. Rather like the US attitude to India and Pakistan getting
the bomb, actually. Perhaps a bit of spying was involved, but come to
think of it, the Soviets did some atomic spying too.

No doubt some of the money the US sent Israel ended up in the atomic
program, but the same was true of US aid to India and Pakistan as
well.

Israeli scientists and engineers are pretty good. And likely are
better lately, a good number of the recent Jewish immigrants from the
USSR had lots of technical training.

-jh-
David
2010-08-25 15:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jh
Post by Vngelis
Post by jh
...As if the israelis own and run their own nuclear weapons...
There he goes again.
-jh-
Those orange exports must have allowed them to enrich uranium...
vngelis
They got the uranium from South Africa. The technical stuff they did
themselves with *no* help from the US, which was, albeit rather
mildly, opposed to Israel getting the bomb in the '60s. Neither
Kennedy nor LBJ liked the idea at all, though they didn't do much
about it. Rather like the US attitude to India and Pakistan getting
the bomb, actually. Perhaps a bit of spying was involved, but come to
think of it, the Soviets did some atomic spying too.
No doubt some of the money the US sent Israel ended up in the atomic
program, but the same was true of US aid to India and Pakistan as
well.
Israeli scientists and engineers are pretty good. And likely are
better lately, a good number of the recent Jewish immigrants from the
USSR had lots of technical training.
-jh-
he can't help himself, clearly. A caveat. The actual enriched uranium,
from one source I know of, including the actual nuclear reactor, was
of a French design. Most of the initial training and operation of the
Israeli facilities was done by the French. But generally you are
correct, Israel, whiile it couldn't do it completely, in fact
continued to the enrichment and, assembled their first bombs...before,
way before, thier joint test with the S. Africans. The US played very
little role in this. The decission to make the bomb coincides with
India's decission to make a bomb, which was in the 1950s when the US
was definetly on the 'outs' with Israel (thus being cutout of the 1956
British/Franco/Israeli invasion to stop the nationalization of the
Suez Canal.

Israel exports quite a lot, most of which is military. Military
industries are the biggest 'private' employers there. They export
everything from small armes (Galils, RPG like weapons) to anti-air
craft heat seakers to anti-Tank guns. Intel has 5 assembly plants for
chips there and exports a tremendous amount from the Zionist entity.

Israel electronics are another big export for them.

This is why the BDS campaign is so important, becauce divstement and
boycotting Israeli exports will hurt them.

David
srd
2010-08-25 19:01:50 UTC
Permalink
So, what do you say to the "Masada complex" argument, David?

srd
jh
2010-08-25 20:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
...
This is why the BDS campaign is so important, becauce divstement and
boycotting Israeli exports will hurt them.
David
The latest Workers Hammer has a good statement on BDS and a Marxist
analysis of Israel, which I'm posting. First time I've posted the SL
stance on Israel/Palestine here, good timing with V and D on the run a
bit. Fractal originally requested Marxist analyses of the question,
this is a contribution to that.

There is also a good statement on Gaza in the issue, which quotes
Norman Finkelstein by the way, and a great quote as a separate
"Archives of Marxism" item from Abram Leon, suitable for ramming down
Dusty's throat if he tries again to claim that he is just a follower
of Leon.

-jh-

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wh/211/Boycotts.html

Workers Hammer No. 211, Summer 2010

Defend the Palestinians against Zionist state terror!
For proletarian internationalism, not appeals to imperialism!
On boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions

Particularly since the Zionist rulers’ massacre on the Gaza aid
flotilla, many defenders of the oppressed Palestinians have renewed
their calls for “boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions” (BDS) against
Israel. As revolutionary internationalists, we support time-limited
trade union actions against the Israeli state. An example is the
Swedish dock workers’ action boycotting Israeli ships and goods coming
from or destined for Israel from 22 to 29 June in protest against
Israel’s attack on the “Freedom Flotilla”. In general, we are in
favour of the trade unions refusing to handle military goods being
shipped to Israel, which would be a blow not only against the Zionist
rulers but also against the British, US and other imperialist ruling
classes.

But while we support the proposed action of the Swedish dockers, we
oppose the political strategy of the reformist union bureaucracies
that initiated it. While raising the supportable demand for lifting
the blockade of Gaza, the call for the Swedish workers action
alsodemands that “Israel pays respect to international law” and calls
for “a general blockade of Israeli goods until the rights of the
Palestinian people are guaranteed and the blockade of Gaza is lifted”.
In a similar vein, a recent statement signed by British union leaders
Tony Woodley, Dave Prentis, Billy Hayes, Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka
says: “We call on the British government and the European Union to
suspend the EU-Israel association agreement and to end their support
for the blockade and collective punishment of the men, women and
children of Gaza. We call for support for a policy of boycott of
Israeli products, disinvestment from Israeli companies and sanctions
against Israel until justice for the Palestinian people has been
achieved” (Guardian, 5 June).

We are politically opposed to standing boycotts and to campaigns for
disinvestment and sanctions against Israel, which are counterposed to
the international working-class struggle on which the liberation of
the Palestinians is premised. BDS campaigns serve to promote illusions
in the benign nature of other capitalist powers — not least British
imperialism — relative to Israel. If successful, boycott campaigns
would hurt the working class of Israel, both Hebrew-speaking and Arab,
causing mass layoffs and weakening its social power, which can and
must be mobilised to smash the Zionist state from within through
socialist revolution.

The reformist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) supports the strategy of
BDS and explains its broad aims in an article titled “The fight
against Israeli apartheid” in Socialist Worker (19 June) which says:

“The BDS strategy is to seek international support and solidarity
until Israel complies with international law: that means Israel must
end the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza and apply
its own laws equitably and universally to Jew and to Arab alike.

“BDS is about building an international movement to isolate Israel
economically, culturally and academically. It is about persuading
artists, writers, and performers not to work in Israel — following the
examples of Gil Scott-Heron, Elvis Costello and others. It is about
identifying Israeli products that are imported into Britain — not just
those produced by settlements on illegally confiscated Palestinian
resources — and pressing importers and outlets not to stock them. It
is about gathering from supermarket shelves all products illegally
produced in the West Bank and presenting them to the managers to help
them avoid prosecution for selling stolen goods.”

The article notes that “BDS is NOT about boycotting individual Israeli
scholars or academics”, but is an “institutional boycott”. In the face
of a vicious Zionist outcry against British unions which had called
for academic boycotts of Israel in 2006 we wrote: “The Spartacist
League and the Spartacus Youth Group call for the defence of the UCU
[University and College Union] and other unions and organisations
against the Zionist backlash and recognise that the boycott campaign
is motivated out of solidarity with the oppressed
Palestinians” (Workers Hammer no 196, Autumn 2006). At the same time,
we noted that:

“The university unions’ boycott, which is part of the wider divestment
campaign against Israel, represents an appeal to the supposed morality
of British and European academic institutions and funding bodies to
sever any links with the brutally oppressive and murderous Israeli
regime. The problem with this is that the universities in Britain are
no less attached to the British state than they are to the Israeli
state in Israel. And the British imperialist state is no less bloody
than the Israeli state.”

From India to Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, British
imperialism has left a trail of carnage around the globe throughout
its history. The present bloody mess in the Near East is itself the
legacy of the “divide-and-rule” machinations of British imperialism
when it was the dominant world power.

Appealing to the blood-soaked British imperialists, Socialist Worker
(5 June) put forward a call that “We must force Britain to break all
links with Israel, including shutting down its embassy.” The notion
that the British government, corporations or campus administrations
(or for that matter, the EU or the UN) can be “persuaded” to promote
economic and social justice is ludicrous. But the programme of the SWP
rests on the myth that British imperialism can be pressured into
acting on behalf of the oppressed and perpetuates the very illusions
in imperialist “democracy” that Marxists seek to destroy. As we said
in “Zionist backlash over ‘boycott Israel’ ”(Workers Hammer no 196,
Autumn 2006):

“Why not call for a boycott of all British consumer goods, protesting
the British rulers’ brutality against the oppressed Catholic minority
in Northern Ireland, not to mention British imperialism’s role in the
subjugation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only does this promote
illusions in the ‘democratic’ and ‘civilised’ nature of other
capitalist powers and corporations which the campaign seeks to
dissuade from doing business with Israel, such a campaign is actually
anti-working class.”

Boycotts and apartheid South Africa

The “boycott, disinvestment and sanctions” campaign is consciously
modelled on the campaign for disinvestment from and sanctions against
apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. Writing in the Guardian (10
January 2009), Naomi Klein argued that “The best strategy to end the
increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of
the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South
Africa.” The disinvestment campaign against South Africa in Europe and
North America was centrally promoted by the bourgeoisnationalist
African National Congress (ANC). It was based on a claim that South
African capitalism could be fundamentally reformed through pressure
from “democratic” imperialist powers such as the US and Britain. In
fact, it was not disinvestment, but the mass social struggles of the
black and other non-white toilers, centred on the working class, which
brought an end to direct white-supremacist rule in South Africa. The
significant wage gains won by black class struggle and the instability
caused by a growing strike movement deterred investment in South
Africa.

At the time, our organisation uniquely told the truth: that
disinvestment was at best an empty moral gesture; that if foreign
companies did withdraw substantial productive assets this would hurt
black workers and weaken the powerful black union movement; and, most
crucially, that it was obscene to look to US imperialism and its
British junior partner as a force for “democracy” anywhere in the
world. The disinvestment that did occur largely took the form of
overseas corporations signing over their interests to local
subsidiaries, which often treated their workers even more brutally.
Indeed, 1989 saw strikes by black oil and rubber workers in South
Africa against such disinvestment schemes. As we wrote in “Black
Workers Strike Against ‘Divestment’ Union-Busting” (Workers Vanguard
no 486, 29 September 1989), “The only kind of ‘divestment’ that will
benefit the exploited and oppressed will be proletarian revolution,
and the expropriation of these riches by a black-centered workers
government as part of a socialist federation of southern Africa.” That
remains no less true today, as ANC leaders like Jacob Zuma continue to
serve as black front men for a neo-apartheid capitalist system whose
fundamental character, including enormous disparities between racial
groups, has remained intact.

For a socialist federation of the Near East!

The Spartacist League and other sections of the International
Communist League intervened into the recent protests against the
Zionist attacks on the flotilla to express our solidarity with the
Palestinian masses and to put forward the only perspective —
international socialist revolution — that can put an end to
Palestinian national oppression. The myriad peoples of the Near East
will not know peace, justice or prosperity until bourgeois rule in the
region is overthrown through a series of socialist revolutions. As
revolutionaries in Britain, solidarity with the oppressed in
neocolonial countries means first and foremost opposing our own ruling
class and fighting to bring down British imperialism through socialist
revolution at home.

The hideous oppression of the Palestinians today, including the siege
of Gaza, is an expression of the barbaric rule of capitalist
imperialism and Zionist nationalism. For more than 60 years,
Palestinians have suffered under the jackboot of Zionist Israel — an
oppression that has intensified since the 1991-92 counterrevolutionary
destruction of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the USSR, which acted
as a counterweight to US imperialism internationally, deprived the
late Yasir Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) of crucial
diplomatic and financial support, paving the way for the ignominious
1993 US imperialism-sponsored Oslo “peace” accords, establishing the
Palestinian Authority as the Zionists’ police auxiliaries in the
Occupied Territories. In an article headlined “Israel-PLO Deal for
Palestinian Ghetto” we wrote that this deal “does not offer even the
most deformed expression of self-determination” and “would place the
PLO’s seal on the national oppression of the long-suffering
Palestinian Arab masses” (Workers Hammer no 137, September/October
1993). It was this betrayal by the secular-nationalist PLO that paved
the way for the rise of reactionary Islamic groups like Hamas and
Islamic Jihad among the Palestinians.

Since Oslo, one “peace” accord after another has been heralded as
opening the door to Palestinian national emancipation. In reality,
Zionist oppression of the Palestinians has only intensified, leading
to ever deadlier cycles of terror against the Palestinian population.
Israel’s rulers have increasingly driven the Palestinians into
bantustan-like enclaves demarcated by a heavily-guarded wall and
sliced up by Zionist settlements, checkpoints and bypass highways.
Gaza is little more than a concentration camp: an impoverished,
devastated strip where 1.5 million Palestinians are trapped,
surrounded by the sea, an electrified fence and a wall sealing its
border with Egypt. All Zionist troops and settlers out of the West
Bank and East Jerusalem!

Both the Palestinian and Hebrew-speaking nations have the right to
self-determination, but because the two nations are geographically
interpenetrated, self-determination for one can only be achieved by
denying it to the other. Under capitalism, every “solution” to the
Palestinian national question either perpetuates the oppression of the
Palestinian Arab people or envisions a reversal of the terms of
oppression, denying the legitimate national rights of the Hebrew-
speaking people. In situations of interpenetrated peoples, a
democratic solution to the national question can be achieved only
through socialist revolution, because only the proletariat in power
has an interest in resolving national antagonisms and can begin to
meet the material needs of all working people.

We make a distinction between the Hebrew-speaking nation living in
Israel and the Zionist state. This is counterposed to the view of the
Zionists, and indeed of the Islamic fundamentalists, who equate the
Zionist state with the Hebrewspeaking people. The Zionist state is not
only a catastrophe for Palestinians — it is also a deathtrap for Jews.
Some 25 per cent of citizens live in poverty and income disparities
are higher than in Egypt and Jordan. Sephardic Jews, though
overwhelmingly under the sway of right-wing and religious parties,
suffer widespread discrimination and poverty. The Palestinian Arabs,
nominally “citizens” who constitute 20 per cent of Israel’s
population, are consigned to segregated, impoverished areas and low-
paid, unskilled jobs.

Israeli society is not a seamless reactionary mass. Despite widespread
support in Israel for the Gaza blockade, there have been
demonstrations against the brutal killings on the flotilla, including
a 6000-strong rally in Tel Aviv on 5 June. It is the false
consciousness of religion and Zionist nationalism and racism — in the
face of pervasive anti-Semitism — that is the glue binding the Hebrew-
speaking proletariat to its Israeli ruling-class enemy. As long as
Zionist oppression of Palestinians continues, Israeli Jews will
continue to be a target of hatred and outrage by the more than 100
million Arabs who surround them. It is only the working class of
Israel — Hebrew and Arab — that has the capacity to destroy the
Zionist citadel from within.

As Marxists, we fight to bring the class question to the fore. The
only road to social and national liberation for the Palestinians —
including the right of all refugees and their descendants to return to
their homeland — and all the other peoples of the Near East lies
through common class struggle by the Arab, Hebrew-speaking and other
working classes of the region. For the Palestinians, this means
recognising the right of the Hebrew-speaking people to national self-
determination. In turn, breaking the Hebrew-speaking workers from
their Zionist rulers requires that they champion the national rights
of the Palestinians. We have no illusions that winning the Hebrew-
speaking proletariat to this perspective will be an easy task. Indeed,
it will likely require the victory of socialist revolution in one of
the other Near Eastern states to break the Hebrew-speaking proletariat
from Zionist chauvinism. This task is not made easier by the criminal
indiscriminate terror bombings carried out by Islamic forces against
Israeli civilians, which drive the Hebrewspeaking population further
into the arms of the Zionist rulers.

At the same time, the solidarity of the Arab masses with the oppressed
Palestinian people must be directed towards proletarian revolution
against their own Arab rulers, who, whether bourgeois nationalists or
Islamic traditionalists, are fundamentally the political agents of
Western imperialism. If this does not happen, the intense and
justifiable hostility against Israel and its American protector will
serve to further strengthen the forces of Islamic fundamentalism,
which posture as the “radical” opposition to the mainly pro-Western
Arab regimes. We look to the proletariat of the region more widely,
such as in Egypt, which has been a centre of working-class strikes and
protests over the past several years. With some 50 per cent of the
Palestinian population living outside the Occupied Territories — in
Jordan, Lebanon, Israel — the national liberation of the Palestinians
demands a perspective of socialist revolution throughout the Near
East, including within Israel, the most powerful and economically
advanced country in the region. It is vital to forge revolutionary
Marxist parties throughout the Near East to unite the proletariat —
Arab, Persian, Kurdish and Hebrew, Sunni and Shi’ite, Muslim and
Christian — in struggle against imperialism and to smash the Zionist
garrison state from within and sweep away the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan, the Syrian Ba’athist bonapartists and the capitalist rulers of
Lebanon through socialist revolution. For a socialist federation of
the Near East!

Our proletarian internationalist perspective is counterposed to those
reformists who tail Islamic fundamentalism, such as the SWP. Socialist
Worker (10 January 2009) ran an article titled “Hamas’s history of
resistance”, enthusing over Hamas as the “bearer of a tradition of
Palestinian resistance”. Islamic fundamentalists like Hamas and
Islamic Jihad are vile anti-Jewish and anti-Christian religious bigots
who seek to enslave women and extirpate any manifestations of social
progress. Hamas is descended from the clerical-fascist Muslim
Brotherhood, which became particularly prominent in Egypt in the late
1940s. Under the slogan “communism = atheism = liberation of women”,
the Muslim Brotherhood mobilised a terror campaign against Communists
and other secular forces. Hamas preaches the social segregation of
women, the wearing of the hijab (Islamic headscarf) and anti-woman
sharia law. Far from embodying a “history of resistance”, Hamas was
initially supported by Israel as a counterweight to the secular-
nationalist PLO. Carrying out attacks on secularists and Communists,
the Islamists engaged in neither political nor military struggle
against Israel.

With the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, the Islamists feared
that if they stood aside they would lose their following. Hamas was
founded in the spring of 1988 as an Islamist political movement with
an armed wing. Hamas sought to fuse the national struggle, previously
a secular movement containing a leftist component, with reactionary
Islamic fundamentalism. It was only in the autumn of 1989, after
discovering that Hamas had killed two Israeli soldiers, that Israel
broke relations with the group.

The Arab bourgeois regimes have always been enemies of Palestinian
national liberation. When the Arab armies went to war with Israel in
1948, it was not to “liberate” Palestine but to carve it up among
themselves. Between 1948 and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the West Bank
and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. And the
Palestinians there remained politically dispossessed and subject to
brutal repression. In the decade following the 1967 war, nearly 50,000
Palestinians were slaughtered by Arab governments, including some
10,000 militants killed by the Jordanian monarchy in the 1970 Black
September massacre.

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, which laid the basis for the liberation
of the tsarist empire’s many subjugated peoples, was a beacon of
liberation for the oppressed throughout the world, inspiring anti-
colonial revolts throughout the Near East. This legacy continued
despite the Stalinist degeneration of the USSR. In 1958, Iraqi workers
led by the multinational Iraqi Communist Party — which included
Muslims, Jews and Christians, Arabs and Kurds — fought to make a
revolution and came to the brink of power. However, this and other
revolutionary opportunities were betrayed by the Kremlin and the
Stalinist-led Communist parties, subordinating the proletariat to an
alliance with “progressive” bourgeois nationalists, who, once in
power, launched a blood-bath against the Communist-led workers.

What is necessary is the forging of revolutionary Marxist parties
throughout the Near East, built in opposition to all forms of
nationalism and religious fundamentalism, and committed to the
struggle for socialist revolution, which, on an international scale,
can finally open the door to human equality and liberation. The
conquest of power by the proletariat in the Near East does not
complete the socialist revolution, but only opens it by changing the
direction of social development. But that social development can be
consolidated only through the international extension of the
revolution, particularly to the advanced, industrialised imperialist
countries.

Defence of those subjugated by the imperialists around the globe
demands the pursuit of class struggle in Britain, the US and other
imperialist centres, pointing towards a proletarian struggle for
power. The Spartacist League/Britain, section of the International
Communist League, is committed to the fight to forge a multiethnic
revolutionary workers party to lead the proletariat in the struggle to
sweep away British imperialism through socialist revolution.

jh
2010-08-19 19:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Post by srd
Post by jh
Post by srd
fractal- Hide quoted text -
That is a good beginning.
I don't think so. Let's get real. No person (especially a Jew!)
dedicated to communism for years should be able to get away with
sidestepping the question of whether Israel has the right to exist! It
just isn't honest—by vngelis standards yes, not by communist
standards. I'm disturbed when someone posts an _otherwise_
*exceptionally* sincere document, which *avoids* the basic question
people were wondering about, without acknowledging the omission until
asked about *that*.
This, by the way, is what distinguishes apst, fractal; ultimately, we
*never* subordinate ideology to social norms.
srd
I tend to agree with SRD. It's rather odd that the question is not
even pondered. Indecission, yes, but an "I have to read more", nyet.
D.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I do not. It is a very complex question, which took the Spartacists a
decade to figure out. At first their position was erroneous.

-jh-
Loading...